Talk:Navel/Archive 1

Since there is no difference between male and female belly buttons per se,

... the captions to the photos are very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A note

I think this article could be better structured, i.e. Umbilicus is a disambig pointing to Belly Button and the other types of Umbilicus. I don't think that the mollusk and the belly button should be on the same page, even if it results in the article being fragmented into a few smaller pages. --TexasDex 00:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Since it has been 16 months and there have been no objections to TexasDex's proposal, I have done as he suggested. I don't know how to transfer the history of the mollusk section in this article to the new article Umbilicus (mollusk) or even if such a thing is possible. If someone could do that and/or inform me of the proper procedure for this kind of split I would appreciate it. James Kell 08:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Shouldn't this be at either navel or belly button, as those are far more common names? - SimonP 16:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Animals

Does anyone know if mammals have belly buttons too? I don't recall seeing them on dogs, cats, etc. 82.35.193.164 20:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a cat owner, he says cats have navels. i guess all placental mammals have navels, not sure about marsupials and monotremata though. Any ideas? -- Sarefo 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I know my dog has a belly button -- when he was younger, I took him to the vet because I thought he had ringworm, but it was just his belly button. I was moderately embarrassed. --Allie 07:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innies/outies

I'd love to see some more information about innies and outies - what the difference is in the tying off of the umbilical cord, that results in the two forms.

PS And animals do have belly buttons - mammals do anyways, since they are carried internally and are connected to their mother through the umbilical cord.

V 16:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of an "outie" added to this article to compare to an "innie" --Millbrooky 06:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, quite important in this topic, I'd say. It's what I came for, anyways. 24.7.89.196 12:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some statistics on the occurence of innies vs. outties. I personally have an innie and I can only ever remember 3 people that I knew who had an outtie. I think innies look a whole heap better though, even though there's nothing wrong with outties I guess. But yeh I like it especially when I see girls wearing crop tops and who have innies. I don't exactly know what it is about them but I think it's attractive. I mean look at the latina in this article, her showing her belly button makes her look sexy. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an outie >_> Dagron12345 (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pertaining to TeePee's comment, I don't think any of that should be considered. For one, many navel lovers love outies (outielovers.com for example) -- and two, this is not an opinion site. So if you wanna see "innie vs. outie" in terms of black and white opinionated sexual deviation, go to a fetish site. This is not the place. 69.120.222.239 (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article states that outies vs innies are determined by the way the umbilical cord is cut. Other sources on the web state that the cause is unknown and/or that the cut is made too far from the navel to have an effect. The 'where it's cut' theory needs a citation at least. Grumpypierre (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to 90% statistic is dead, and not a good source anyway. Remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.77.227 (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

belly button

I am wondering how the belly button got its name.

It's in the belly area and looks like a button. ;-) 87.81.108.52 22:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Informations

Can someone post more scientific information about the umbilicus? I agree that the article should have its "social" part but there is more info about the social aspect of it than the umbilicus itself. I'd like to know, for example, why some umbilicus are "innies" and why some are "outies".

Hi!

I just wonder whether anybody could explain if "out" navels are dependent of how the umbilical cord is treated, i.e. if they can become more or less common over time? Best regards --Sponsianus 23:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitivity

Anything about the sensitivity of the area? such as cleaning it and picking at it? It usually feels quite unconfortable. 71.250.9.119 15:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i understand what your saying. thats the reason i actually looked this up, i was wondering if its a usual thing too have it uncomftorable when the inside is touched, does anyone know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.59.50 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The picture in the article is rather unclear - I think we all know what a belly button is, but it's impossible to tell what you're looking at in that image. I think a more head-on picture or something like that would make it easier to figure out. --DearPrudence 07:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

location

In the header, the article says that the location varies. However, right below that in the second called "human anatomy", it says that the location is "relatively consistent." While I understand that these are not exactly contradictory, it's at the very least rather unclear. What is the variation? ±1cm? ±5cm? I don't think I have any ability to survey enough people to answer this myself... --Strait 00:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statisitcs

It'd be nice if we could include more data on innie v. outie for belly buttons. Like the frequency of each, and perhaps some theories on what causes the difference? I'm thinking that a lot of people coming to this page are looking for that type of info. --K e rowyn ^{Leave a note} 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I agree. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Picture

The new picture of a female belly button (swimsuit pic) is far more aesthetically pleasing than the earlier picture of Donald Rumsfeld's hairy navel.

I put my picture there and someone put a picture of a big hairy belly there. This one from swimsuit article would look better

Unsourced quote

I've moved the following unsourced quote to here until it can be properly sourced, per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Deirdre Day-MacLeod, in an essay on the navel, sums it up by saying that "perhaps it is the navel's lack of obvious purpose, combined with its audacious, almost arrogant, spot right there in the middle of things, that sucks its admirers in".

-- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- Kjkolb 11:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umbilicus to navel. Navel is by far more commonly used than umbilicus. The term "umbilicus" sounds extremely technical. Voortle 19:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's the most common English name (aside from the rather informal "belly button"). --SigPig 22:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 70.251.198.251 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I support this, but doesn't Wikipedia normally use standardised medical names for body parts? Mr.bonus 12:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Navel exposure in Indial culture

All the claims stated here has not cited with any verifiable claims and I was unable to find any viable information on that. Please provide the information or please erase the claims if the information could not be proved right.

This particular entry in the article seems out of place. It shouldnt be placed here as it seems to be concerned with the Indian Culture more than anything else. 122.167.100.251 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naval reconstruction

Hello everyone. I was searching onthe web for articles about navel reconstruction and (not finding anything) stumbled upon this site. I have accepted the daunting task of tattooing a bellybutton on a lady who had surgery many years ago, and as a result the bellybutton was totally removed. While sketches of this strange body part have been very successful and lifelike, the actual tattoo has it's share of inherent problems (i.e. the shape of the image changes drastically when the person is standing, as opposed to laying on the table during the procdeure.) (For those of you who have never experienced a tattoo, it is imperative that the skin be flat and taut or it doesn't work very well). I guess what I was hoping for were maybe photos of anything similar that I can compare to --or--I know the chance is slim-- any one who may have done something similar to this contacting me with some pointers. I take lots of pride in my work but this one has got me stumped..! Please email me @ countrydiva@wildblue.net

--12.213.224.38 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Thank you Michael.KJ Sam 02:48 26 May 2003 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is for discussing the contents of the article. It is not a blog, discussion forum, or locater service. -- Donald Albury 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is too hairy

Its confusing. Can we get one from a swimsuit magazine or something? The one up there ^ is obscure.

But my main question is what causes an outie? There was mention of it being "random". Wtf?

Genetics

Are outies genetic? Because My father, brother, sister, and I all have outies, and we were all delivered by different doctors.

Image

There has been a lot of conjecture on this page (and on the history page) about each successive image being unpleasant (and I agree), and the removed images have still continued to be replaced by something users have found equally distasteful.

Many heterosexual men find certain parts of the male anatomy repulsive, it’s just something weird that the majority of us share, but I also know of multiple women that have been repulsed by the thought of a male navel. So it’s not just us. Women are just more attractive and approachable on the whole, nobody would take offense or be turned-off looking at the page if it was a female navel - so what’s the big hang-up about using a woman’s belly button for this article’s picture?

And if anyone truly objects to my particular image, then use one of your girlfriend, sister or yourself (female Wikipedia editors). The procession of images on here suggests that we Wikipedia editors are all male loners who don’t have any contact with females…

My image serves as a better overall description of the topic and focuses solely on the area in question, it doesn’t show a variety of body parts in addition to the one it is detailing, in the way that past images on this page have - and it isn't covered in hair. Lughguy 03:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outies

I think there should be a mention and an image of an "outie" belly button... it seems to be absent from this article--71.194.128.49 09:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The male of this species

The picture shows Female umbilicus, wouldn't it be good to have also a picture of the male of this species ?

There's no point as it is essentially the same (but often less visible due to hair), but the person above's comments ring true - I wouldn't like looking at a picture of a guy's, whereas I don't think women would mind either way. 86.149.37.106 (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As for the line that will thus apparently be written immediately before mine: I think the picture of a navel shown somewhere above IS a guy's, as it shows a line of "upper pubic hair" leading up to it. I believe that's sometimes referred to as a "trail." And I think that's much more characteristic(if not exclusively so)of a guy, though not all guys have the feature--for some, there's no hairline connecting the navel and the pubic hair.

But my own point is that "navel" is a better name than "belly button" generically, though the latter has a more "friendly" sound to it. To my thinking, though I know the terms are used interchangeably, even by me, a belly button applies only to an "outy," because there's indeed a sort of "button" there -- that is, something that can be "pushed." An "inny is just a hole, which sometimes contains a little "button" inside it, but more commonly doesn't. It's just a hole, of different sizes & depths according to the individual. So "button" doesn't have much meaning in that case. Not that it makes a lot of difference. As for placement, the statement that they're always in the same place is correct only in a general sense.... meaning that they're somewhere on the stomach or belly area. But some are placed quite low below the waistline, others quite high up, well above the waistline.Redheadtodd 04:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Belly button" has a trivializing sound---as if it were a slightly ridiculous part of the body. "Navel" has a little more dignity to it. Tom129.93.17.168 (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic tag

What are the reasons for the unencyclopedic tag? Is this referring to the Fashion or Sexuality section? In my opinion, neither subject falls under the category of what Wikipedia is not, and the tag should be removed or changed to a more appropriate template. --Evil1987 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nipples?

In the picture, you can see the woman with her nipples protruding. Is this allowed? Un1234l (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There should be a better image for this. 130.85.227.95 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is allowed. See WP:CENSOR. -- Joquarky (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture again

I'm removing the picture captioned "Human male navel and torso;" not on any grounds of taste, but because it just doesn't show the navel very well. Dr. e X treme 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be moved to "Belly-button?"

Last time I checked, the preferred Wikipedia practice was to use the most common name unless it was (1) unclear (2) inherently non-NPOV (3) misleading, etc. 72.83.187.25 (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding, if there is an official name for something, that name is used. For example, I never hear anyone except for a doctor say 'Myocardial Infraction,' and yet the page here isn't called 'Heart Attack.' However, if there isn't a set name for something, and it varies from place to place, the most common one is used. Zoombus (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tummy button edits

I've tried a few times to add 'tummy button' as a colloquialism in the first sentence, but it keeps been reverted by someone. Is there any reason for this? In the UK 'tummy button' is at least as commonly used as 'belly button'. Marthiemoo (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but maybe people already accept that 'tummy' is often used in place of 'belly' in the UK. 86.139.69.53 (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this. "Umbilical dip" was listed as a colloqualism - really? "Tummy button" is far more common and I see no reason for anyone to remove it. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance differences

I have noted that many Latina women have large innies whilst conversely, many women of African decent frequently have outies. If genetics have no bearing on this at all, how come? 86.139.69.53 (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odor

The belly button can have an unpleasant odor, and I tried to add it in this article, but the source I put in (ehow.com) was not allowed. Can someone please insert an "odor" section in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.148.142 (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you ever tried washing it? --Dragonixta-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.182.95 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Photo

There has to be a better, more professional photo of an "innie" umbilicus. When I go to an article, I don't expect to see pictures of, at best, MySpace or Facebook quality. DKqwerty (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, no action on this for almost three months now except for adding an equally poor-quality picture? There have to be some medical or professional images free of copyright, or someone who can take an adequate photograph which can be donated to Wikipedia. DKqwerty (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Female Model in Saree.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Female Model in Saree.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does the navel attach to?

What does the navel attach to -- before and after birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.7.198 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What?? Cannot understand.Please elaborate.WikiMan88 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo's navel?

The caption of the Leonardo "Vitruvian Man" image read "The navel is at the golden ratio at 62 percent of body height". This may or may not be true; but it is unreferenced and is in no way supported either by Leonardo's drawing or the text that accompanies it, in which the only mention of the navel is the statement that it is the centre of the circle. I've removed the reference to the golden ratio.

I've also removed a sentence in the text which read "This illustrates the principle that in the shift between the spread-eagle pose and the straight pose, the apparent center of the figure seems to move, but in reality, the navel of the figure remains motionless". What principle is this, and where does it come from? In Leonardo's drawing the body and head remain fixed; the legs and arms are shown in two positions, and two geometrical figures are superposed. The circle has the navel as its centre; the centre of the square is the root of the penis. But I don't really see how that information can enhance our understanding of "navel". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "The navel is considered sexy."

LOL. This isn't encyclopedic at all - this should be reworded or removed. 66.87.2.178 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requoted WikiMan88 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an advice column is not a good source.--Taylornate (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

source removed WikiMan88 (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More male navels please

I find it ridiculous and inappropriate that this article is illustrated with all but one female navels! Can we at least put that one swimsuit shot in that shows a male navel fairly well? It's not enough of an explanation to say that all male's bellies are hairy and therefore do not show the navel well. Not all men are extremely hairy. Invertzoo (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The complete lack of presence of male navels with an abundance of female navel photographs is ridiculous. There should probably be less pictures in general with a more equal distribution between male and female. —Wikipedian77 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very over illustrated. The photographs need culling, and certainly need a male/female balance. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 09:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the article mentions, most navel-related artwork is tied to the feminine and giving birth, so female navels are more of a cultural focus than male navels. But there are a good number of male navel images: this link and anyone is free to add or swap images as desired. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the pictures in the "World cultures" section do not show historical navel-related artwork. (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H%C3%BCfthose.jpg ) I have to agree that this entire section is just sexist. I am a regular Wikipedia user, though not editor. But the first thing I thought when reading this page was "where are all the male pictures?". I am male and appreciate female pictures as well as any other, but I still think this page (or at least section) needs a more objective point of view. 94.109.18.44 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]